I think I'm going to stop reading LGM now -- I had already stopped commenting. I already have enough things in my life to be pissed about, and fellow "liberals" condoning child abuse is just a bridge too far (and no, I doubt either of you would be surprised by who those particular commenters are).

I posted this on Facebook this morning. To be honest, I was thinking more about the domestic violence crimes - beating your child with a stick seems pretty awful, although it's been SOP in many communities for centuries. But there are genuine questions that seem to be getting short shrift:

=====================================

Here's the thing that is confuddling me.

The controversy seems to be whether a team allows the player to play after he is arrested for various offenses, and/or at what point in the process the team de-activates or benches that player. So the primary punishment question is preventing or allowing the player to play in games.

Now obviously this is a salient question because the team's interest is in winning games, and that might influence their decision making process.

But this is weird. Being prevented from playing in games while still maintaining his position on the roster and on the payroll is NOT a terribly serious 'punishment' for the player. It punishes the team for the player's actions, while the player essentially gets a paid vacation.

In the larger question, I am terribly uncomfortable with employers taking actions after an arrest, before the DA even decides to file charges. The earliest in the process an employer should take any action at all is after arraignment. But if the team is going to act against the player at any point, shouldn't the player actually incur some kind of loss?

Mr Hyatt. These incidents of abuse are only allegations in the legal sense that the players have not been formally charged and convicted. Assuming the players aren't victims of implausibly elaborate frame-up jobs straight out of the CIA's book of dirty tricks, there isn't much question that these incidents of violent abuse actually were committed by the players in question. Are we to believe that a person who commits domestic or child abuse and is for some reason acquitted or who pleads to a lesser crime for a reduced penalty is less guilty than someone whom the justice system was able to convict? I don't believe that, just like I don't believe that prosecutors never convict innocent people for horrible crimes.

Our justice system is based on what prosecutors can prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury, which is the best we can do until we are all under 24/7 video surveillance from multiple angles. Sometimes there is compelling evidence that is not admissible. That means the safeguards we have in place to prevent police and prosecutorial misconduct are working, it doesn't mean that the accused is innocent.

The NFL is a massively profitable enterprise, which is wholly dependent on the goodwill of the millions of fans to sustain its business model of trading the youth and health of the best athletes in the country for fleeting money and fame and lasting brain trauma. The US in general and pro sports in particular have a way of minimizing crimes that would get people who aren't for example star football players much harsher consequences.

Just as a bank that catches a teller stealing money from the vault on camera isn't going to wait to fire them until they are convicted of theft, the NFL has a responsibility to, if no one else, it's own brand image to deal with these cases of abuse in a manner that shows the world that they take this issue seriously. To do otherwise is to demonstrate that the NFL puts its corporate profits ahead of the safety of the public, and reinforces the idea that pro athletes are above the law.

Well, if you are comfortable with an employer taking action that early in the legal process, ok, but I'm certainly not. Your metaphor is flawed - who caught the teller taking the money? Is it on video? Did another form of surveillance observe it? Or is there money missing and you suspect that specific teller is guilty? Because if a League Official actually observed the violence, that would be sufficient for the team to act. But if there is an arrest only - and by the way your faith in law enforcement is truly ill-founded - then an employee should not be disciplined.

I've been arrested about three times more than I've been prosecuted - they pretty much arrest anybody anytime they want to, and sort it out later.

And if you're ok with the NFL doing something you wouldn't want your employee to do to you, you're being quite selective in your application of employee rights, which is something I'm not willing to do...

About Me

The Big Bad Bald Bastard is a character played by Monsieur _______ of the City of Y______. The role of the Bastard is a handy one to play on subways, walking the streets, and in dive-bars, when being a nerdy, bookish sort is not to one's advantage.